Forum:RFC Balls or spheres? Should we create naming guidelines for uniformity?
Request For Comments: Before the Wiki gets too big to do anything about it, let me put these questions out there so at least we have the possibility to think about it.. * 'Bars' or 'rods'? * 'Balls' or 'spheres' ? (Every time I hear someone speaking about 'balls', I cringe a bit..) I might just be a Big Child, but telling american housewives that Geomag is a game where you play with bars and 'balls', is just too much Beavis & Butthead... The official Geomag FAQ says rods and spheres (1)'. Peter Jepsen * Comments on this? * Should naming guidelines be suggested? * Would it be against the 'free' contribution idea? * Should it be up to the individual contributors? Peter Jepsen 14:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ---- I would vote for Rods and Spheres (2). (Amafirlian) --Amafirlian 15:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ---- * I vote for Rods & Spheres (3) (Karl Horton) As for guidelines and keeping to them: my view is that we shouldn't yet get too school-teacherly about this: if we have to choose between putting people off and having language that we have to correct later, I'd prefer the contributions. I think the (implicit) way that Amafirlian and I have been handling things so far is a good model - I'm fairly picky about spelling, so tend to correct spelling mistakes when I see them: I may not notify the author that I've done it. He's picky about formatting and has corrected several posts. I haven't talked to him about this, but the way I see is is that one sets an implied standard in the wiki and people tend to follow it if they are regular contributors. Occasional contributors will be thanked for their contribution, and any minor style issues corrected by the regulars. I believe that, done politely, most people are flattered to have their work read and corrected. So, Peter, you have my complete permission to go fix this one, and I'll stick to the new guideline in future. --Karl Horton 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ---- * But should we? (Peter Jepsen) One thing is fixing spelling errors and formatting, but changing actual words, isn't that just censorship? Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question(s). Is the feeling of (school-teacherly) Big-Brotherism that people will feel when they see their articles edited and words changed worth the seriousness gained by uniformity of the articles? Could the Golden Middle Road be a "Guideline of Suggested Terms"? (Note to self: Always remember to press submit after previewing last change, Argh!) Peter Jepsen 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ---- That damn preview thing has caught me too! --Karl Horton 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ---- Interesting thoughts! I actually never realised that people would be offended if some of the formatting or spelling would be changed. I have seen all of Karl's changes, and actually learned from them (BTW: thanks Karl! )and corrected similar ones he overlooked. I would think that is why there are 'talk pages'. I would go for a concensus, changing things as we go along. E.g. I'll change the 'balls' to 'spheres' in the template (keeping the balls alternative as a parameter name for downwards compatibility). On the big-brotherism, I never thought of it that way too. I like uniformity because it usually means all the information is there, and can be easily found. If for example a construction doesn't mention the amount of spheres and rods used, I can't see how adding this would result in a feeling of (school teacherly) Big-Brotherism, but maybe that's just me. So now I'm thinking I might not have worried enough... --Amafirlian 21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ---- As Karl touches on, * I think people would in general not be offended by someone fixing spelling errors and beautifying layout. I don't think we should worry about doing that. * I don't think people would be offended at all by having additional details (ie. rod and sphere count) added. * I do however think that people could be offended by having words in their article changed, for no directly apparent reason. It's like having someone replace all instances of the word rhombic with the words diamond shaped in articles that I wrote, just because that person likes that particular phrase better. I myself would be a bit miffed if that was to happen. As Amafirlian says, 'Talk pages' could be the best way to handle retroactive changes in people's articles. A standard template about the uniformity idea, requesting an OK could be posted in an article's 'Talk Page' (or is it 'Discussion'?) and if there aren't specific objections, the change could go ahead.. Peter Jepsen 09:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ---- For terminology I'd go for rods. I don't mind which of balls or spheres is used. The panels are pentagons, squares, triangles and diamonds. I know Geomagsa call them rhombic but in UK they're called diamonds. My next challenge on here is uploading pictures. For the ones already on Flickr, you won't get rod count. Sorry. —This comment is by Cate1976 (talk • ). ---- To be perfectly honest I'm not remotely bothered what we refer to them as. Rods and Spheres seems a little long winded and pretentious though, rather than just a simple Rods and Balls, but I appreciate others' concerns with the "playing with rods and balls" lol :-D. As for editing, I was under the impression that was the whole idea with a Wiki? I've no problems with people changing layout and stuff to make it look neater or adding their own experiences. However anyone who messes with the "proper way" of spelling COLOUR will be in trouble lol ;-). I'm also one who's guilty of not sticking up a rod count. I'll try and improve on this however, as it's good for consistancy and gives others an idea of exactly how many rods they'll need prior to building. There are few things in life that are as annoying as running out of rods :-D. (however I draw the line at counting balls) :-D --AFKAN 10:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ---- I can't believe this is even an issue for anyone. As long as it's clear what's meant then who cares what word is used? Silly people... Chillum ----